click_button_by_text

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the selection behavior ('first visible') and the programmatic nature (bypassing the mouse), which are useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, what happens if no button matches, or whether the click triggers any observable outcome, leaving gaps for a state-changing operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, target, matching condition, and execution mode without waste. Every element earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior but lacks important contextual details such as the 'partial' parameter's role and error behavior when no button matches. It is adequate but not fully complete, especially considering the absent annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully describes the 'text' parameter by explaining it matches button text, but it entirely omits the 'partial' parameter's meaning (e.g., whether it enables substring matching). This incomplete coverage leaves the agent to guess about a default-enabled parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Press'), a specific target ('the first visible button in the running game'), and a matching condition ('whose text matches'). It also clearly distinguishes itself from mouse-based simulation by stating 'programmatically rather than via the mouse', which differentiates it from sibling tools like simulate_mouse_click.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool: when you need to press a button without moving the mouse, as indicated by 'programmatically rather than via the mouse'. This provides clear context for selection, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or mention exclusions, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.